THE USDA SURRENDERS

Victory for Organic Consumers & Farmers

By RONNIE CUMMINS

It's nice to win a victory once in a while. After being battered
in Seattle, bruised by the mass consumer rejection of proposed
organic rules in 1998, and unnerved by the growing controversy over
genetically engineered foods, the Clinton and Gore administration
find themselves on the defensive. Feeling the heat from consumers,
the USDA has apparently decided to call off its food fight -- at
least temporarily --with the nation's 10 million organic consumers,
6,000 retailers, and 10,000 organic farmers. On March 8 the USDA
formally surrendered to the organic community by releasing a
completely revised proposal for national organic food standards and
labels. The new 663-page proposal (available online at
www.ams.usda.gov/nop) incorporates nearly all of the recommendations
made by the National Organic Standards Board and organic activists,
including a prohibition on genetic engineering, sewage sludge,
irradiation, and a variety of other industrial-style agriculture
practices.

A massive, unprecedented consumer backlash in 1998 over the USDA's
first proposed regulations shook up the USDA and forced them to back
off on plans to degrade organic standards and allow biotech and
corporate agribusiness to take over the rapidly growing organic food
market. US organic food sales this year will likely reach $8
billion--a sizable bite of the $350 billion total annual sales of the
nation's supermarkets. At current growth rates organic production
will constitute 10 percent of American agriculture by the year
2010.

Besides backing off on the "Big Three" (genetic engineering,
sewage sludge, and irradiation) the USDA bureaucrats bowed to
grassroots pressure and basically agreed that any product bearing the
label "USDA Certified Organic" will have to be produced without toxic
pesticides or toxic "inert ingredients"; that antibiotics, growth
hormones, and rendered animal protein can not be administered or fed
to animals; that factory farm-style intensive confinement of farm
animals will not be allowed; and that no synthetics or chemicals will
be allowed in organic production without the approval of the National
Organic Standards Board. In addition the USDA basically agreed to
leave the preexisting system of private and state organic certifiers
intact; to allow accredited state and private organic certifiers to
uphold higher standards than the USDA; and for licensed organic
certifiers to be able to display their logos or seals on the front
label panel of organic products. Finally the USDA backed off on their
previous proposal to outlaw "eco-labels" which might imply that a
product was organic.

Despite major improvements in the current proposed USDA organic
standards over what was put forth in 1998, there are a number of
problems and shortcomings in the lengthy March 8 document. Among the
most obvious problems are the following:

(ogonek) So-called "natural foods" with less than 50 percent
organic ingredients will be allowed to list their organic ingredients
on their information panel -- usually on the back of the package --
even though the non-organic ingredients of these products may be
genetically engineered, irradiated, derived from sewage sludge, or
produced with pesticides, growth hormones, or antibiotics.

(ogonek) Manure from factory farms will be allowed to be used as a
fertilizer on organic farms.

(ogonek) Although the proposed regulations on organic animal
husbandry require "access to outdoors," no clear definition of what
constitutes "pasture" are offered, nor does the USDA delineate exact
space or spacing requirements for humane housing and outdoor access
for poultry, pigs, cattle, and other animals.

(ogonek) Although the USDA claim they don't intend to impose
economic hardships on organic certifiers and farmers, the added costs
of USDA oversight will fall heavily on small certifiers and farmers.
The USDA should provide accreditation services to organic certifiers
free of charge as well as subsidize the costs of any farmer who
wishes to become certified as organic. Beyond this the USDA should
allocate funds to pay farmers a premium price for their products
during their "transition to organic" phase as an added incentive for
the majority of farmers to begin making the transition to sustainable
and organic farming practices.

(ogonek) Although genetic contamination of organic crops by
"genetic drift" from farms growing genetically engineered crops is
one of the most serious environmental threats to organic agriculture,
no residue limits for genetic contamination are delineated in the
USDA's proposed federal regulations. The USDA must hold biotechnology
patent holders and seed companies accountable and financially liable
for the environmental and economic damage inflicted on organic
farmers and producers caused by genetic drift.

Consumer Vigilance & Comments Required

Although organic consumers and farmers should be proud of the fact
that our collective grassroots efforts have forced the government to
adhere to high standards in these proposed rules, we need to keep in
mind that the March proposed rules are not final regulations. After a
90-day official comment period -- which ends June 12 -- the USDA
could bow once again to pressure from corporate agribusiness and the
biotechnology industry and issue a set of weaker final rules, filled
with legal loopholes and exemptions. For this reason it is important
once again for us to flood the USDA with thousands of comments --
which can be sent either by email (go to the USDA website listed
above); by fax (703-365-0760); or regular mail (Keith Jones, National
Organic Program, USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP, Room 2945-So., Ag Stop 0275, PO
Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456). When sending comments by fax
or regular mail identify your comments as referring to docket number
TMD-00-02-PR. Please demand that the USDA deal with the five problems
we've noted above, but stress first and foremost that the USDA should
not weaken the provisions outlined in the March proposed rules in any
manner whatsoever.